|
Post by ricflair4ever on May 25, 2017 21:15:48 GMT -5
Yup,thats quite annoying, but i think there were a few times where the color guy let common sense prevail. I believe Jesse Ventura and Gorilla Monsoon both immediately come to mind as mentioning this. And, i thought JR did once as well. But ,for the most part, it just been something avoided as to put the suspense on the traditional number 1 pick. Its a better story to tell, as far as the way it sounds, to say "Shawn Michaels lasted all the way from number 1 to 30!" As opposed to "HBK came in at number 2 to win it all".....marketing basically. They could say that the No.2 entrant won by starting the Rumble from the beginning of the match. It's always irritated me too, in they never give Davey Boy Smith the credit he deserves for starting Rumble '95 with HBK at No.2 and yet almost won it by being the last one left and made me think he had actually won it, until Shawn made a despicable sneak attack!! Total miscarriage of justice that the mark in me will never forgive Shawn & Vince for!!! Anyway, back to facts that they don't mention: They acknowledge that Styles, Lesnar and Nakamura have faced each other in Japan, but never mention the outcomes! You're absolutely right about the Styles/Lesnar/Nakamura deal. But, for once, i can understand the logic. WWE may feel semi forced to ackowledge their past ,since all three have history there that can be exploited to WWEs benefit at some point. However it does them no good to mention which guy wins as they want to save that for us to pony up cash to WWE for. Sure, we know we can go look online and find out, but the casual fan wont waste the energy. Its actually pretty smart of WWE to do this one. It lays potential foundations for future programs now, and they can pull the trigger on their own company branded matches down the road with a combination of these guys.
|
|
JimRiga
Superstar
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Joined on: Feb 15, 2017 16:46:49 GMT -5
Posts: 908
|
Post by JimRiga on May 25, 2017 21:47:02 GMT -5
[/quote] You're absolutely right about the Styles/Lesnar/Nakamura deal. But, for once, i can understand the logic. WWE may feel semi forced to ackowledge their past ,since all three have history there that can be exploited to WWEs benefit at some point. However it does them no good to mention which guy wins as they want to save that for us to pony up cash to WWE for. Sure, we know we can go look online and find out, but the casual fan wont waste the energy. Its actually pretty smart of WWE to do this one. It lays potential foundations for future programs now, and they can pull the trigger on their own company branded matches down the road with a combination of these guys. [/quote]
I totally see your point! I think there are two ways that can be approached, the one they are doing now with them not mentioning the results and then there is the Lesnar/Goldberg situation, where the previous result really mattered in the story. I quite enjoyed that. Would be interesting for them to go down that route and who knows, they could still go there in the future!
|
|
|
Post by tylerbreezee on May 25, 2017 21:53:41 GMT -5
That Jinder lost every televised match since his return before becoming number one contender
|
|